Jump to content

Does Sark know that field goals get you 3 points?


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Hookem2147 said:

That’s even more reason to go for it. You are unlikely to ever get a better chance than the ball at the 1 foot line. And if you kick a FG, you need a TD anyway for it to truly matter.

There is no way anyone can say with a serious face we should have kicked a field goal from the 1 foot line with what we had shown offensively up to that point.

I guess you could make the argument with a serious face if you lack a 6th grade level grasp of probability.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

It was 3rd and 5, and we aren't throwing the ball in that situation. We were throwing because we needed a TD instead of 10-15 more yards for a FG.

You can play hypotheticals all you want. Get 1/2 yard and none of it matters.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

At some point you can’t just say ‘the probability says to go for it’ when conventional game theory stops applying. Perhaps the fact that we’ve been very poor at short yardage situations for five years should start to factor in? Perhaps the psychological benefit of seeing points on the board should be factored in? Or that we have an elite defense that doesn’t need the offense to score a ton of points? I recognize there are counters to this argument, but we’re not simulating a football game we’re playing one. There comes a point where you can’t say ‘the decision was the right one, the play call was the problem’ when it has happened dozens of times. There is clearly a fundamental problem that changes the probabilities.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)

Mason Shipley is 31-35 for his career with his longest fg make being 60 yds. With our defense and ability to flip field position, taking the points needs to be the option inside the 40 at 4th & 2+. Point blank

Edited by A’Dam Psycho
Posted

I think modern coaches risk losing the respect of their players and facing almost immediate transfer and recruiting consequences if they kick FGs at the 1. If it’s debatable to kick the FG or go for it, you have to give your team a chance and go for it. We just need to be less predictable. 

Posted
On 8/30/2025 at 7:01 PM, HtownHorn said:

Sarkisian's 4th down playcalling is fucking abysmal. Has been since he got here kept Reggie Bush on the sideline and ran White into the line in 2005.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/30/2025 at 6:16 PM, TXpride said:

0-7 in the 3Q, ball at the 1 ft line. No coach in the country kicks a FG there.

Until play calling is better. Texas analytics says you take the 3 no matter where you are.

On 8/30/2025 at 6:21 PM, mdmost said:

Going for it wasn't the issue. The play calling on 4th was. 

Until he fixes it going for it is always the issue.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

That wasn't his decision. He was the QB coach. Lane Kiffin was the OC that made that call, with the support of the head coach.

He said in an interview it was his goof. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, B00M said:

I think modern coaches risk losing the respect of their players and facing almost immediate transfer and recruiting consequences if they kick FGs at the 1. If it’s debatable to kick the FG or go for it, you have to give your team a chance and go for it. We just need to be less predictable. 

I wasn't as pissed at Sark for going for it as the play call. Arch may be bigger and stronger than Quinn, but he's not going to plow through 2 LB's set up behind the DT's. When is the last time Texas had an OL that could move a good DL off the ball when they can see what's coming? I certainly can't remember.

You have to spread it out and hit the open gap. There will be a gap if you spread it out like OSU did, even if it's a small gap. Baxter can get 1 yard in a small gap.

And analytics are stupid ass when what you do well against what the opponent does well aren't part of the formula.

Edited by Hard Times
added
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It’s part of his coaching style at this point. Passing up field goals in the first half to go for the conversions against the big name teams is frustrating. I don’t mind it against teams we “should” beat. Situationally, it’s first week of the season breaking in 4 OL and a new QB, so get the points knowing the defense is ahead of the offenses in week 1.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, StassneyHorn said:

I think the same analytics that say go for it on the 1 yd line also tell you to go for 2 when scoring down 14

Yeah, assuming your coach has a bag full of good 2 pt plays. 

Posted

I can understand an insufferable egomaniac like Tom Herman continuing to go to a dry well to prove he really knows what he's doing. But this Texas team and fans should expect better of Sark. And I say that as a big fan of him as our HC. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

The 4th and goal didn't bother me. But Sark should have kicked the field goal in the 4th quarter. Play calling inside the 10 yard line needs to get better. Gave me 2023 red river ptsd 

You wanted us to kick a field goal down 14-0 in the 4th quarter with 7:30 left?

Posted
On 8/30/2025 at 6:48 PM, HtownHorn said:

Sark fucked his team royally in this game. His playcalling sucked for 3Qs, and he refused to take points when he should. He kicks the two FGs and then gets the TD. He either is a 2-point conversion from a tie, or he has the ball at midfield when a FG wins the game. By 1-3 points. His in game strategy sucks when his playcalling is lacking.

we may have to split the football board in half

forum 1: take the points

forum 2: the other forum

Posted
2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

It’s part of his coaching style at this point. Passing up field goals in the first half to go for the conversions against the big name teams is frustrating. I don’t mind it against teams we “should” beat. Situationally, it’s first week of the season breaking in 4 OL and a new QB, so get the points knowing the defense is ahead of the offenses in week 1.

we're on the road

opening day

retooled everything

top 5 opponent at the top of the blueblood list

everyone arguing against taking points is doing so emotionally

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, B00M said:

I think modern coaches risk losing the respect of their players and facing almost immediate transfer and recruiting consequences if they kick FGs at the 1. If it’s debatable to kick the FG or go for it, you have to give your team a chance and go for it. We just need to be less predictable. 

then why did everyone want to play for saban?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Ohio State arguably won the game because they faced 4th and 1 in the second quarter of a 0-0 game and punched it in the end zone.

Meanwhile we have people thinking we were going to beat Ohio State by attempting a bunch of field goals in a game where we had minimal offensive pulse until the 4th quarter.

Kicking a FG from the one foot line to make a 1 touchdown game a 1 touchdown game defies every rule of game theory. It’s moronic.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 8/31/2025 at 2:02 AM, Wilcox Cummingtonite said:

Kick FGs today and win ugly 16-14. I never understood why you wouldn’t when you have an elite D. Saban won this way for years.

That's the issue with Sark being OC and HC.  His OC side compromises his HC decision making.

  • Like 1
Posted

those of you saying go for it are assuming it's reasonable to think we will score.  It's not reasonable to think that right now, don't you get it? until that is fixed, forth and go for it is basically a turnover.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

"Game theory" explains a lot in the aggregrate, and can drill down to some degree (home/away, etc.).  It does not account for a specific coach's tendencies or on-field talent, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 8/30/2025 at 7:21 PM, mdmost said:

Going for it wasn't the issue. The play calling on 4th was. 

You mean to tell me that the QB sneak directly up the gut wasn't predictable? 🤔

Posted

Going for it on 4th and 1 was the right decision. But I think the criticism of Sark’s decision making extends to the rest of the game, as well as the last few seasons.

It seems to me he suffers from a little bit of “gamblers fallacy” coaching.

He wants to score TD, not FG. He has an elite defense. So he goes for it in situations where punting or kicking a field goal would make more sense. Then the failure to produce points on earlier drives necessitates more aggressive play calling later to make up for the deficit. Before you know it you turn the ball over on downs 4 times against a top 5 team on the road.

He needs to learn to take the points until you don’t have any other choice but to force it. You’d think a former NFL guy would understand the value of 3 points but here we are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Hookem2147 said:

You wanted us to kick a field goal down 14-0 in the 4th quarter with 7:30 left?

Kick the field goal on that 4th and goal in the third, then kick one one 4th and 3 in the 4th, then after that Parker TD go for 2.

Posted

FGs are for losers is a great general strategy WHEN you are a solid favorite or solid underdog. 
 

When you are in a game where the teams come in pretty evenly matched - to + 3 in the spread you gotta base your decisions a bit more on what you SHOULD know your team is good at, not good at and how the game is flowing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Longboard Horn said:

Kick the field goal on that 4th and goal in the third, then kick one one 4th and 3 in the 4th, then after that Parker TD go for 2.

So we need to kick a FG from the one foot line in order to give ourselves a later opportunity to convert a two point try from the 3 yard line. And that assumes every other Ohio State possession plays out the same way (i.e you kick a FG from the 1 foot line, Ohio State isn’t starting their next possession from their own 1).

Beating the Ohio State Buckeyes requires you to score touchdowns from the 1 foot line. We can try to convince ourselves otherwise with what-ifs and hypotheticals, but that’s the reality.  

Posted
3 hours ago, Auto Driller said:

Going for it on 4th and 1 was the right decision. But I think the criticism of Sark’s decision making extends to the rest of the game, as well as the last few seasons.

It seems to me he suffers from a little bit of “gamblers fallacy” coaching.

He wants to score TD, not FG. He has an elite defense. So he goes for it in situations where punting or kicking a field goal would make more sense. Then the failure to produce points on earlier drives necessitates more aggressive play calling later to make up for the deficit. Before you know it you turn the ball over on downs 4 times against a top 5 team on the road.

He needs to learn to take the points until you don’t have any other choice but to force it. You’d think a former NFL guy would understand the value of 3 points but here we are.

parcells:

don't go for 2 unless: 1) you have to; 2) it's late and your touchdown just put you up by 4 or 5

take 3 points unless: 1) there's not enough time to get the ball back, i.e. late in the 4th; AND 2) you are 100% on your line and your call

Posted
45 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

Beating the Ohio State Buckeyes requires you to score touchdowns from the 1 foot line. 

no, it does not

points are points

they count the same on the Big Board

beating *ANYONE* in the top 5/10/25 has 1 requirement: yards = points

until you are ahead and in control, coming away empty from the red zone is a bad plan

especially on the road against the title holders in game 1 with everything retooled when your red zone performance has been crap for 3 years

  • Like 1
Posted

If you refuse to evolve your understanding of the sport, you take the points boomers can keep screaming it into the void until you die, I guess.

Barring obvious specific situations, no coaches kick FGs inside the 5 yard line anymore. It's dumb, bad math, losing football. 

Let your 16 yard field goals go. Or don't. It's amusing as hell.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

If you refuse to evolve your understanding of the sport, you take the points boomers can keep screaming it into the void until you die, I guess.

Barring obvious specific situations, no coaches kick FGs inside the 5 yard line anymore. It's dumb, bad math, losing football. 

Let your 16 yard field goals go. Or don't. It's amusing as hell.

It’s worked out so well for Texas hasn’t it? Look there are 3 outcomes (7 points, 3 points and 0 points) in 5 situations. (1) Score the TD easy, (2) clearly a FG opportunity and going for it makes no sense (think 4th and 12), and then the three we are talking about, it’s 4th down and 1 from inside the 10 yard line. get the 7, take the 3 or turnover on downs from a failed 4th and go for it. You all assume get the 7 will happen for Texas as the computers say it should, but it hasn’t so right now you are picking between 3 and 0 points and you’re calling folks boomers for wanting 3 over 0. As soon as sark can prove to be a better than average red zone play caller we can talk about 7, 3 or 0, but right now, the evidence is damning, we are choosing 0 thinking 7 is a real possibility when it just isn’t.
 

He’s so fucking bad at it, and everyone saying they get it are blind as can be. Fix the problem then we can think about 7 or 0 but right now it’s pretty much a guaranteed 0. 

that’s not even getting into the issue of how you can let a defensive struggle get away from you when you leave 3 on the table or the momentum bust when you walk away with 0. It also fails to recognize how few points this defense needs from the offense to win. It needs more than zero, but once we cross 10 points a win is a legit possibility. That makes 3 points that much more valuable. 

yeah the 4th and 1 from the goal line you should go for it, I get it, but don’t lie to yourself you all knew it was even odds at best. Shit like that should be 90% odds in our favor. But it’s not. 

take the points isn’t a failure to see how the game has evolved, take the points is understanding 3 is better than 0 and 7 just isn’t a reliable possibility on 4th and 1 in the red zone right now.

Edited by troph
Posted
7 hours ago, troph said:

You all assume get the 7 will happen for Texas as the computers say it should, but it hasn’t so right now you are picking between 3 and 0 points and you’re calling folks boomers for wanting 3 over 0.

The computers don’t assume you get 7 points. That is not how analytics work. Maybe that is the disconnect.

It says that over the long haul, if you go for this 4th down every time, your win expectancy is greater and your expected points scored is greater than kicking FG. No one remembers the times we converted 4th down in the red zone and scored (Arch against A&M, opening drive against Kentucky, opening drive against Clemson, etc.)

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Hookem2147 said:

The computers don’t assume you get 7 points. That is not how analytics work. Maybe that is the disconnect.

It says that over the long haul, if you go for this 4th down every time, your win expectancy is greater and your expected points scored is greater than kicking FG. No one remembers the times we converted 4th down in the red zone and scored (Arch against A&M, opening drive against Kentucky, opening drive against Clemson, etc.)

The disconnect is the computers aren’t considering the fact that Texas sucks ass at fourth and go for it and it doesn’t matter what other data is in the so called model. 

the disconnect is the failure of the computers to realize if Texas can get to 17, the game may be over. So going for it to maximize the chance for 30+
points may not be necessary. The computers fail to realize coming away with nothing …. AGAIN is demoralizing to a defense. 

Edited by troph
Posted
12 minutes ago, troph said:

The computers fail to realize coming away with nothing …. AGAIN is demoralizing to a defense. 

Your opponent starting their next drive on their own 1 is actually something the computers factor in.

Posted
1 minute ago, Hookem2147 said:

Your opponent starting their next drive on their own 1 is actually something the computers factor in.

I don’t have a huge problem with 4th and 1 from the 1. But the totality of the situation over three years, yeah fuck analytics, take the points. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, troph said:

I don’t have a huge problem with 4th and 1 from the 1. But the totality of the situation over three years, yeah fuck analytics, take the points. 

I just don’t understand this attitude. The numbers are what they are, kicking short fgs results in fewer points for your team. 

I have my frustrations with Sark at the moment, but he’s largely been correct in his decisions to go for it vs. kick. 

Posted (edited)

 

21 minutes ago, UncleSonny said:

I just don’t understand this attitude. The numbers are what they are, kicking short fgs results in fewer points for your team. 

I have my frustrations with Sark at the moment, but he’s largely been correct in his decisions to go for it vs. kick. 

this is helpful.

Couple of points, inside the 35 is too far out, that's a 52 yard field goal. Let's assume 40-42 yard FG is guaranteed, so that number needs to be inside the 25 when we are talking about leaving points on the table. There is no man's land around the opponents 35-40 where 4th and short has almost no risk - points are hard to get, punt likely a touch back, etc. Then I wonder how that plays out in games that matter - what about OU, UGA x2, tOSU, WA, play off games... and what is the percentage that we need to be at for this to be a no brainer?  I don't think it's 50% - straight up that's 4.5 points instead of 3. Plus I bet the percentage is lower against these teams that really matter. 

I'd be willing to bet that inside the 25 against OU, UGA, tOSU, playoff games, etc. that he's below that 50% average making the above analysis situationally useless.

and that doesn't even take into account the defensive slug fests, knowing your defense is only going to give up 2-2.5 scores per game, on the road where momentum matters, what happens when you time and time again go for it and now you need that FG to tie or win.  there's just so much more to this than raw averages. every situation is different and analytics matter but they aren't the only factor and general analytics (as opposed to situationally relevant analytics) have nearly zero value to me.

Edited by troph

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...